Journal of Management Studies Special Issue:

Meaningful Work: Prospects for the 21st Century

Submission Deadline:
3rd March 2017
Guest Editors:
Catherine Bailey, University of Sussex
Adrian Madden, University of Greenwich
Ruth Yeoman, Oxford University
Marc Thompson, Oxford University
Neal Chalofsky, George Washington University
Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, Auckland University of Technology
BACKGROUND TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Scholars from across the social sciences have often argued that meaningful work is the job
characteristic that individuals value the most (Grant, 2007; 394; Harpaz and Fu, 2002).
Meaningful work is even regarded by some as a fundamental right (Frankl, 1959; Yeoman,
2014). In contrast, meaningless work, has been described as alienating, disengaging and
disenfranchising (Nair and Vohra, 2009; Shantz et al., 2014). Despite the level of interest in
the topic, a recent systematic review showed that the literature remains fragmented, and that
surprisingly few empirical studies have been conducted (Rosso et al, 2010). For instance,
although sociologists have identified a range of different meanings that work can hold for
individuals (Budd, 2011), they have been less concerned with meaningfulness. Psychologists
have included experienced meaningfulness as a dimension within models of job design for
many years (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), but the measures available to evaluate
meaningfulness have been described as imprecise and self-referential (Lips-Wiersma and
Wright, 2012). Political theorists have argued that meaningful, dignified and worthwhile
work fulfils a human need (Yeoman, 2014), yet lack empirical data.
With employment becoming more precarious, demanding and increasingly characterised by
self-employment, short-term contracts and unpaid work, organisations face complex
challenges to make work meaningful to individuals and groups. Some argue there is a crisis
of meaning and purpose as a consequence of failing to connect to the economic, social and
environmental challenges of our time (Castillo, 1997). If people still aspire to work which is
useful, interesting, expressive, or in some other way valuable, worthwhile and dignified, this
raises questions about how we arrange economic and organisational practices to promote
such work. As economies struggle with the pressures of recession and competition, are there
limits to the impact that workplace strategies can have on human motivation and human
flourishing? The answers to these questions are not just nice to have; some regard them as
vital to social and individual well-being.
1

In light of the emerging limitations of prevailing discourses such as work engagement to

explain human behaviour and experience at work (Bailey et al., 2015 in press), attention is
now turning to other, more nuanced and holistic experiences, such as meaningfulness, that
take account of the whole person within a multi-layered organizational and institutional
setting. This presents a challenge to moral philosophy and critical social theory which treat
work as a degraded site for human action, and for liberal political theory which makes the
negative freedom to enter and exit from the employment relation sufficient for an account of
work. Finally, the inadequacies of present theoretical and empirical approaches to describing
and evaluating meaningful work are made evident by compelling epidemiological research on
the negative impact of poor quality work upon health outcomes with consequent individual
and societal costs (Bambra, 2011). This empirical evidence has not yet been fully been
incorporated into new forms of job design, nor has it influenced theories of social justice
through a public examination of the centrality of work in modern societies.
Understanding and developing our conceptual and empirical knowledge of what
meaningfulness is also necessitates taking account of the variety and nature of work. Work
can be paid and unpaid, formal or informal carried out in conditions of freedom or
compulsion. Modern forms of slave labour have been used to build important infrastructure
in developing economies, which improves the lives of many people. In some cultures (for
example, India) a caste system has developed around certain types of work (building, sewage
etc). Do the institutional norms in certain contexts legitimate such work, confer meaning, and
make such work meaningful to the people doing it? How does this align with global standards
and norms around work (e.g. the Decent Work campaign by the ILO?) and what are the
implications for cross-cultural management? What are the interconnections between
meaningfulness across life domains (paid/unpaid work; personal life etc)? Work is also
becoming more virtual and spatially disconnected. Workers are collaborating globally in
production systems where they never meet other co-producers or engage with customers.
How is meaningfulness created and sustained in such contexts? What are the implications of
these new modes of working for meaningful work?

TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS SOLICITED

The purpose of this special issue is to call for papers focusing on meaningful work within the
context of the latest stage in capitalist development where technology, global markets,
financialisation and increasing instability are interacting to create intense pressures on how
work is organised and experienced.
Articles that approach the topic at a theoretical and empirical level, and from a variety of
social science perspectives are encouraged, including sociological, psychological,
philosophical or political economy viewpoints. Studies that seek to provide integrative, interdisciplinary explanations are especially welcome. In particular, we seek papers that address
the following issues:

Empirical studies of the experience of meaningful work from the individual perspective,
including explorations of the association between meaningfulness and aspects of diversity
and intersectionality, or from workers in different types of occupations. Cross-cultural
comparative studies would also assist with theorizing meaningful work.

Studies that explore meaningful work in different ownership and governance contexts
(e.g. employee owned firms, social enterprises, NGOs etc).
Articles that shed new theoretical light on meaningfulness, notably those that draw on and
develop integrative frameworks from multiple disciplines. These may include papers
which examine the value of meaningfulness from the perspective of moral philosophy and
critical social theory, as well as from the perspective of political economy as morally
worthy, or worthwhile work.
Explorations of organizational programmes and interventions aimed at shaping the
experience of meaningfulness, such as HRM policies and practices, leadership styles or
organizational contexts, notably those adopting a critical perspective.
Corporate responsibility is argued to attract a high quality workforce and lead to higher
employee commitment because it creates meaningful work. At the same time the
effective delivery of corporate social and environmental responsibility initiatives is
dependent on employee responsiveness (Collier and Esteban, 2007:22). This suggests
that the relationship between corporate responsibility and meaningful work is complex
and interdependent rather than linear. We invite studies that explore the relationship
between meaningful work, employee participation and social and environmental
corporate responsibility.
Studies that examine the interface between workplace spirituality and meaningfulness,
between callings and meaningfulness, between meaningfulness and the concepts of
purpose, passion and engagement, or those that explore the individuals role as crafter of
meaning.
Studies that explore meaningfulness in relation to well-being both inside and outside
work.
Papers that consider the changing structure, process and context of work and its link with
meaningfulness, particularly studies that explore precarious work and its structure of low
wage and skills, instability/insecurity, intensity, and vulnerability.
Papers that address the question of how institutional environments influence the quality
and meaningfulness of work and how these macro-level factors interact with meso-level
workplace regimes and individual experiences. These may include studies which evaluate
the public policies (e.g. Good Work Indices) needed to establish the institutional
conditions for promoting meaningful work.
Studies that consider meaningful work within a framework of rights, values and ethics
and that consider the normative value of meaningful work. For liberal political theorists,
organizing society to promote the good of meaningful work entails a challenge to the
ideal of liberal neutrality where the state remains neutral between different conceptions of
living (ibid.). For political economy, organizing for meaningful work implies that choices
can be made between different forms of capitalism where promoting the value of
meaningfulness becomes one of the decision criteria (Keat, 2009). Promoting the value of
meaningfulness in system of rights, values and ethics would imply, minimally, not
inhibiting a persons search for meaning and, substantively, the creation of independently
valuable objects of action (Yeoman, 2014)
Studies that explore meaningfulness in relation to concepts such as identity and
professionalism. These may draw upon the moral and political philosophy literature on
self-identity formation and social recognition, as well as upon organizational studies. An
underexplored theme is how work may be experienced as more or less meaningful in the
interaction between human actors and materiality
Research from an organizational level perspective that engages with organizational
purpose and its relation to meaningfulness at work. Collins and Porras (1997) work, for
3

example, on firms with sustained success pointed to the importance of purpose and
values. How are the two related, and are they mutually necessary to sustain meaningful
work?
Studies that explore how research methodologies can produce fresh insights and debates
into meaningful work and the subjective/objective conditions in which it arises.

CONFERENCE ON MEANINGFUL WORK

This special issue is linked to a conference to be held at the Auckland University of
Technology (AUT) in New Zealand 30 November 1 December 2016, entitled "Meaningful
Work: Prospects for the 21st Century". Further information about the conference will be
available soon. Presentation at the conference does not guarantee acceptance of the paper for
publication, and attendance is not a prerequisite for publication in the special issue.

SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINES

Papers will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.

Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines (see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/%28ISSN%2914676486/asset/homepages/JMS_Manuscript_Preparation_Guidelines.pdf )

The deadline for submissions is 3rd March 2017.

Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the guest editors at the following

address: k.bailey@sussex.ac.uk and copied to a.madden@greenwich.ac.uk

Informal enquiries relating to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with
the Special Issue objectives are welcomed. Please direct any questions to the guest
editors at the e-mail addresses above.

References
Bailey C., Madden A., Alfes K., Robinson D., Fletcher L., Holmes J., Buzzeo J. & Currie G.
(2015, forthcoming). Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential
benefits to NHS staff: a narrative synthesis of the literature. London: NIHR.
Bambra C. (2011) Work, Worklessness and the Political Economy of Health, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Budd J. (2011) The Thought of Work. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Castillo, J.J. (1997) Looking for the Meaning of Work. Work and Occupations: An
International Sociological Journal, 24 (4): 413-25.

Collier J & Esteban, R. (2007) Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 16 (1): 19-33.
Collins J. & Porras J. (1997) Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New
York: Harper-Collins.
Frankl, V. (1959). Mans Search for Meaning. An Introduction to Logotherapy. New York:
Touchstone.
Grant A. (2007) Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 393-417.
Hackman J. & Oldham (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Harpaz I. & Fu X. (2002). The structure and the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst
change. Human Relations 55(6), 639-668.
Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keat R. (2009) Choosing Between Capitalisms: Habermas, Ethics and Politics. Res Publica,
15: 355-376.
Lips-Wiersma M. & Morris L. (2009) Discriminating between Meaningful Work and the
Management of Meaning. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 491-511.
Lips-Wiersma M. & Wright S. (2012). Measuring the Meaning of Meaningful Work.
Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group
& Organization Management, 37(5): 655-685.
Nair N. & Vohra N. (2009). Developing a New Measure of Work Alienation. Journal of
Workplace Rights 14 (3): 293-309.
Shantz A., Alfes K. & Truss C. (2014) Alienation from Work: Marxist Ideologies and 21st
Century Practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18): 25292550.
Yeoman R. (2014) Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy: A Philosophy of Work and
a Politics of Meaningfulness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.